> Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>> Howard Chu writes:
>>> So, what do folks think about reviving libldif as an exported piece of
>> Exporting LDIF parsing sounds fine. Hopefully compatible with existing
>> libldifs (mozldap libldif and maybe very-old openldap libldif), though I
>> haven't looked at either yet.
> The original patch I proposed in
> Enhancements?id=6194;selectid=6194 is roughly compatible with mozldap.
>> I can't decide what I think about dependencies. The way OpenLDAP libs
>> are split up in liblber and libldap is geting in the way, as usual.
>> For an app without LDAP/networking, it can be annoying to have to drag
>> in libldap and via that OpenSSL, SASL, which can drag in Berkeley DB,
>> and I don't know what else, just to parse LDIF files. When they're all
>> already installed I suppose it rarely matters much nowadays, but it may
>> be a different story for maintaining/downloading precompiled packages.
>>> From: hyc(a)symas.com
>>> rmeggins(a)redhat.com wrote:
>>>> I think this could be accomplished in one of two ways:
>>>> 1) Just have libldif return lists of struct berval* for the various
>>>> parsed. The caller would be responsible for turning these into
>>>> or LDAPControl structures - the advantage is that libldif doesn't
>>>> to know about any of these higher level structures
>> That sounds nice in making libldif almost standalone - needs only
>> liblber. For that matter, if someone wants to get rid of that we
>> could provide hooks for allocation and log functions.
>>>> 2) Have libldif create LDAPMod and LDAPControl - I think this could be
>>>> accomplished by having ldif.c #include<ldap.h> to pull in the
>>>> definitions of LDAPMod and LDAPControl - would this be ok?
>> Does this need libldap? Or will it be sufficient to tell the user
>> that he should use ldap_controls_free() or functions he can copy&paste
>> from libldap, so he can avoid libldap if he really wants to?
> I would prefer this approach - it would be most convenient to have the
> LDIF parsed into LDAPMod and LDAPControl structures - for those (very
> few?) apps that will want to use libldif standalone, it's easy to free
> LDAPMod and LDAPControl structure data.
I think we could split the problem in two:
1) low-level parsing into arrays of bervals (in libldif?)
Ok. So libldif would then return the attr/vals, controls (other stuff?)
as arrays of struct berval *.
What about the changetype field and the mod type? Should libldif just
return the strings, and let the new, higher level libldap function use
this to convert the string+values into LDAPMod*'s? Or should libldif
attempt to parse (and validate) the changetype?
I think the former - it would still be the responsibility of the client
to either know about changetypes, or use the higher level libldap function.
libldif would have a function that would take a record from an LDIF
encoded file and return
char *changetype - changetype from record (or NULL if just an entry)
char **mod_op - array of mod_ops in order
char **mod_type - array of mod_types in order
struct berval ***mod_bvals - array of values for each corresponding mod_type
and similar lists for returning the controls associated with each
record. This seems awkward - too many function arguments.
libldap would have a function to convert these arguments to an LDAPMod**
and an LDAPControl**.
2) higher-level parsing in LDAP* structures (belongs to libldap,
needs at least the declaration of those structures). This level would
delegate parsing to libldif, and simply deal with arranging data into
I understand this approach would probably be in constrast with Rich's need
of parsing into LDAP* structs from within libldif, and in any case to
avoid the need to link libldap... The only alternative I see is to have
libldif include ldap.h and act as a standalone library.
All in all, libldap does not need to depend on libldif for turning LDIF
into LDAP* structs (a client would). So libldap may need libldif for
low-level dealing with LDIF data - but note:
currently it doesn't; only clients call ldif_* functions. So deciding
that libldif depends on libldap, and not vice versa, would be compatible
with current arrangement.
>>> Let's move this discussion to the openldap-devel mailing list. I'm
>>> thinking (2) is OK but I'd like to hear from other developers /
>>> potential users of this library.